pvxfandomcom-20200214-history
User talk:Shireen/archive1
Im done allready! The premade and Primer Follow-up sections are done to the best of my coding and scripting ability. I am not going to make any more eddits. All the pages and build articles documented in the Primer Articles are up and accurate to what is on the Guild Wars website. I took a neglected, unfinished section that was on the main page and completed it. If the administration feels that this section is detrimental to the health of PvX then I will consent to that without any bickering. In the mean time it serves as an example of what our "New to PVP" players section could be like. If you have any better ideas PLEASE create a policy to adress the premade section of the site or the creation of "New to PVP" area. Shireen 10:08, 6 May 2007 (CEST) Category:Primer Follow-up Why? What's the point? Are we going to list every build that ANet ever posts on their website? -Auron 03:33, 6 May 2007 (CEST) I thought the whole "Spirit" of the pre-made section of the site was to give brand spanking new PVP players a place to get started with. I have the primer and pre-made sections done (with the exception of linking which I am doing now). These builds show up the site anyway, with multiple varations and tweaking. I figured if we would just post them once we wouldn't have to deal with the 1001 'minor' varations that come up. The State of the Game articles (which, I think few people read) have very few actual builds posted on them, so it won't take up much space and illustrate solid team components that will improve players understanding of how the game works. Shireen 03:37, 6 May 2007 (CEST) :Did you do the write-ups on these? Some are incorrectly formatted, some give the wrong ideas about things, and some are just flat-out wrong. If we're going to host anything that comes from Guildwars.com, it will have to conform to PW:WELL... if it sucks or is a copy of another build we already have, it's going to be deleted. A general how-to-PvP section is something better suited for GWW. -Auron 03:48, 6 May 2007 (CEST) :: Yes I did the write ups. And the information that is posted there is a brevity of the information about those builds from the articles. I will fix formating then, if you can give an example of how my formatting is wrong, so I can more easily change them. :::If I can create something there, there is an example of what it could potentially be in place and in view, that way people can better make a decision if it's something they don't want - They will then be able to say what they DO want. As of right now, there was nothing in place to begin with. As for the allready existing builds... I have an example: The master of magic smiter came straight off the primer site and I provided a link to the vetted version on it's page(which, if you look at it, came straight off the primer site as well). Thats an example of what I am talking about, all these builds show up, and their 1001 varations are going to be pushed onto this site anyway. Why not give credit to where these builds actually originated from? With the builds being outside of the vetting comunity (as stated in my policy sugestion) it maintains that orginal infomation in tact - a documentation of an effective build released by Anet. ::I just wanted to fix the section and I thought people would be more excited about having such an easy - finger tip - refrence to good advice. I was asking about the discontinued pre-mades because we are a wiki for a game - and those discontinued were part of the game (That information is now lost and not available to the general public). I realize that this is not an official policy in any way shape or form, which is why I am not going to start on the SotG builds section, and will only start on that area IF my policy gets approved. :::Not but a few days ago the premade section only had 4 or 5 of the 10 premade builds posted to it, and some of the details in those sections were innacurate and it has been that way since I found Guildwiki and started using it. I thought I would start an initiative and put something in place that made sense. The prebuilds section is now built and accurate according to the Primer Acticles it cited as it's source. Considering that it took it's information (as for skill sugested unlocks) from the primer article it is a logical conclusion to take it a step further and show the follow-ups. Shireen 04:05, 6 May 2007 (CEST) ::::"The master of magic smiter came straight off the primer site and I provided a link to the vetted version on it's page(which, if you look at it, came straight off the primer site as well)." I think you're a bit confused as to how builds go around. No, the vetted build that was on GuildWiki existed before it was ever posted on guildwars.com; the people that write the primer articles are PvPers, and therefore get all of their information from the game itself. They saw people running MoM smiters, so they wrote it up as an article on guildwars.com; they did not write it up first. But that's largely beside the point, just something that irritated me as I read it. ::::An example of improper formatting, you say? Build:W/any Hammer Warrior (primer follow-up). It's supposedly a Mesmer/Monk using all hammer skills. ::::"I just wanted to fix the section and I thought people would be more excited about having such an easy - finger tip - refrence to good advice. I was asking about the discontinued pre-mades because we are a wiki for a game - and those discontinued were part of the game (That information is now lost and not available to the general public)." That... entire paragraph is wrong. 95% of the time, what you find on guildwars.com about PvP is not "good advice." Secondly, we are not a wiki for a game; you must be thinking of GuildWiki or Guild Wars Wiki. We are a wiki dedicated to builds. Lastly, the information on pre-mades is not lost to the public (unless the public can't access something like this). ::::We aren't an archive project. We aren't a wiki dedicated to documenting what ANet has to say about PvP. We're a wiki dedicated to builds; and as such, all builds on this wiki are held to the standards of policies like PW:WELL, which means some of those primer builds are going to be deleted. -Auron 04:22, 6 May 2007 (CEST) ::Then why have a "Premade" link on the front page? Im documenting BUILDS. See: http://www.guildwars.com/competitive/articles/pvpprimer/crosstraining.php (It's close to the bottom of the page) for where I pulled the build from. The PVP Primer articles have been updated and do give GOOD advice and training sugestions. Citation links like that are still what I need to put onto those pages. What you were talking about was a Discontinued build (and would go in the Legacy Premade section - which documents 'builds). Im not pulling this stuff out of thin air. And I am having problems understanding why you are so adimantly opposing something that, untill a few days ago, was largely ignored by the comunity as a whole because it was an incomplete project. Im not asking you guys to do any work, Im saying I-Am. Shireen 04:32, 6 May 2007 (CEST) : As for the PWELL issue, I understand that. If my policy gets voted down here in the next few day (considering how close the policy voting is. I will submit to the deletion, no griping or complaining (which means the ENTIRE pr-builds section would be deleted anyway). That is why I wrote the policy as I did, to protect the documentation of new-player oriented content (Builds) that was released in primer series that the site had allready began to cite. And the builds you pointed out are in User Space, normal users, or people unfamiliar with the Wiki would be completely unable to find it (I know I was unable to). Shireen 04:35, 6 May 2007 (CEST) Please stop with all this premade work. The mere fact that we are hosting these builds implies that we recommend them. Maybe set up an Archived category for them, but srsly, some of these are horrible. Dervishes don't use Troll Unguent. People do not use these. They suck. Like it or not, believe it or don't, ANet has given some bad advice. Now you're passing that bad advice along to our user base. We absolutely do not need these for people 'new to PvP.' If they need help with builds, they can look at our good ones and work from there. Why the heck would you want to give fledgling PvPers bad advice, and make their debut that much more difficult? - Krowman (talk • ) 07:49, 6 May 2007 (CEST) Those pre-made articles are aimed at people who do not have skill unlocks, and a certain perspective needs to be taken on it. I am just finishing up what was allready started and an established part of this site. I've used each of these builds when I personally went through the PVP primer guide, and for new players these build sugestion do work. I am almost done with the section. And I did ask before I got kickin on it http://www.pvxbuilds.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page - Shireen 07:54, 6 May 2007 (CEST) :I have no idea what you are talking about when you say "these are aimed at people who do not have skill unlocks." For most of those builds, you need unlocks to play them. You don't start off with Burning Arrow! These are horrible suggestions. Let's compare two builds: one that is standard metagame, and one that ANet has recommended. First, the popular one: Next, ANet's build. This isn't a question of simplicity. ANet's build is not simpler; it is inferior. Anyone can see that they are different, yet new players won't know why they are different, and what it is that makes the popular one good. You're providing new players with horrible advice by saying that that primer guide-build is a goodie. In the end, you will have got them convinced that the primer bar is the good bar, and he will be the worse player for it. He will never understand the ridicule he will receive for running that build, and all in all it will just make his game experience worse. (P.S. Bad advice aside, the primer guide articles are riddled with bad information. Bow attacks certainly are suspect to interruption!) - Krowman (talk • ) 08:09, 6 May 2007 (CEST) ::: Allright then, lets fix it. Lets put in a PvX recomended subcategory and get them going on the right path. The groundwork has been properly laid. We can put whatever information would be best for them to use. And I understand that the Anet builds are simplistic, thats why I put a link to the favored builds on all Primer Follow-Up builds with a note: If you want more advanced builds... Shireen 08:11, 6 May 2007 (CEST) ::::Again, it is not simple and advanced; this is about good and bad. Builds that PvX recommends will be the builds and guides we offer to the user base. The best information for people looking to play a BA Ranger would be to play the build I demonstrated above. Let GW.com host their own builds; don't let the reputation of this site (at such an early stage!) get dragged down with it. - Krowman (talk • ) 08:17, 6 May 2007 (CEST) :: Okay, I see your perspective on this very clear. I personally don't understand why these builds are so bad for new players because they have helped me out so much. A new to PVP type guide (with build and training sugestions) does need to be created to help improve our community and adress every skill level that comes to PvX. If the administration wants to remove the entire section on that basis (of these builds being sub-standard), I have no problem with that. I've allready put a lot of work into this section and I just ask that ya move it my userspace upon deletion (If that would be allright). I am going to finish it (I have one more page to put in (for the hero-team traing), and a few scripting thingies with the links to fix) and then I will completely stop. Promise, I will be done by tongiht. Since ya'll are so adamant about this being a bad idea, at least I have created some kind of working/visual model in which to base the PvX beginner guides and builds. Shireen 08:25, 6 May 2007 (CEST) :::Thank you for that. You can move it into your userspace yourself, if you want to retain the articles; you don't need an amin to di before deleting them. Click the 'Move' tab at the top of the article page, and move it to 'User:Shireen/blankblankblank.' Once it is in the userspace, there is little anyone can do about it. - Krowman (talk • ) 08:28, 6 May 2007 (CEST)